Bullying hurts.Shame, rejection, and exclusion are painful—as are any injuries that send you to an Emergency Room. School hallways, no less than family holidays, can inflame (age-old) distressing patterns, so watch for these symptoms, and know that there are home remedies that can help address them:

SYMPTOMS:

Cognitive Disruption. Like pain caused by bodily harm, bullying—social pain—interferes with your ability to “think straight.” You can’t ace an algebra test (or get through a family dinner) when your shoulder—or your social status—has been dislocated.

Limited Ability to Self-Regulate. Have you ever heard someone yell %@#!* after stubbing their toe, or pick up and hurl the heavy object that fell on their foot? The impulse behind such reactiveness is no different than the one that overcomes the boy called a "fag," the girl taunted for her weight (or hair, or nose, or mouth), or the family member subjected to snide comments by relatives.

Inability to Empathize with Others. When you walk into an emergency room, you want to know how soon you will be attended to. Nursing an injury, you lack the capacity to feel bad for the other people waiting ahead of you. Similarly, after being taunted and teased by peers/family members, you are unable to feel bad for the troubles besetting your sister, or the pain you may cause to those around you by the desperate act(s) that cross your mind. Your own pain overrides any ability to empathize.

HOME REMEDIES:

Take some acetaminophen. Because bullying lights up the same pain circuitry in the brain as does any physical injury, taking Tylenol can actually reduce the hurt you are feeling. This should NOT become a daily curative. However, sometimes an analgesic, or "pain-killer" is enough to allow you to regain an ability to "carry on" in your usual fashion (perhaps, in this case, by reducing the swelling of inflamed emotions?)

Modify the attention you give over to your injury. This is NOT AT ALL to say "ignore it and it will go away." However, anyone who has been hurt while playing sports—or who has watched a professional athlete be helped off the playing field/court—knows the impulse to override the pain and “play through it.” When your attention is fully engaged with something else, pain is minimized. So shift your focus. Walk away, and put your attention on something you like/care about (or turn to a different relative and talk about the new series you have been watching, or a recent project, concert, or vacation). Interrupt the cognitive and emotional reactions that threaten to take over by refusing to privilege the pain—though of course, you must monitor the injury/your healing over the next days.

Change the expectations surrounding the injury. This is NOT AT ALL to say “chin up, shoulders back, no crying.” Rather, it is to draw attention to the fact that expectations can overly-sensitize us to a negative stimulus,whether that stimulus is a gash on the arm or a comment that seems snide and hurtful. Think of it this way: when you are not predisposed to feel acute discomfort at having blood drawn, you perceive little more than a pinch. But when you anxiously picture the needle/blood, even the rubber strap making your veins bulge creates bodily sensations of distress.An expectation can be a large part of the pain that is experienced. Translation: when you assume that everyone is going to agree with the stupid rumor a peer is spreading, or concur with the snarky comment your relative just made, you anticipate shame and rejection. Predisposed to social pain, you become anxious over glances in the cafeteria or laughter at the other end of the table. Try expecting silent compassion—everyone knows your peer/relative is an attention-mongering gossip; a jerk they mentally shrug their shoulders at (likely not believing, or invested in, whatever s/he is saying).

Get a second opinion. When you suffer bodily injury, it is not unusual to show the wound to someone—a teacher, parent, colleague or friend—and ask them to assess its severity (or help staunch the blood, splint the finger, mitigate the harm done). And, while it is not likely you will turn to someone and ask their opinion of the psychic pain you are feeling, you might ask their opinion of the dynamic that produced the wound: "Why do you think s/he would make such a nasty comment about me?" Their opinion might surprise you—and help mitigate the harm done.

Treat yourself. Many doctors used to give lollipops to young children who were hurt and needed their services (and you got to pick the flavor!) Do something nice for yourself—you’ve earned it; you deserve it.

Finally, take back your power by acting (as opposed to reacting). One of the most effective things you can do is engage in a random act of kindness. Shift the focus from your pain by making someone smile.You will feel better by doing this, and you will interrupt the cognitive and emotional reactions disrupting your well-being (although you may still not be able to ace the algebra test or empathize with your sister’s troubles). There may be no proverbial ‘little old lady to help across the street,’ but no matter where you live, you can find stressed/disgruntled people (just go to the mall). Smile. Let them in line in front of you. Compliment a stranger—or give an approving nod to something they are doing/purchasing. Go out and create connections to others—even a passing connection—and you will be surprised at how it modifies your feelings of pain.

Remember: injuries become infected if they are not cleaned and carefully bandaged, so it is important to care for your psychic wounds, and not let them fester. You should no more ignore the gash on your arm than the damage to your sense of self-caused by cruelties on the bus/around the family table.So carefully evaluate your wounds (paper cuts can hurt much more than a concussion, but we all know which is the more serious injury). If you are bullied, you may not be in the best position to assess your injuries, put the damage in perspective, and determine a course of action for healing. Asking for help does not make you a crybaby.

“Yes, but…”

Cultural norms still make most victims reluctant to let anyone see their pain, so you may ignore the hurt/play through the situation. This should not preclude assessing the damage once you are off the playing field, or monitoring the wound in the oncoming days. Try a home remedy or two, but do not hesitate to ask for help if pain/rage/depression continues to dominate your waking hours. Home remedies are courses of action that can mitigate the severity of an injury, but whether this is only a temporary lessening of a deeper, underlying wound, or enough to facilitate healing is a determination that cannot be made in the moment. Sometimes home remedies do the trick. Sometimes they have no effect, at which time it is important to speak with a (mental) health care professional.We often think that if we cannot see blood we are not gravely injured and in need of attention, but nothing could be further from the truth. Take care of yourself, and of those around you who are in pain.

Self-cyberbullying.Using an alternate IP address to direct cruelties toward oneself.Roasting oneself on Reddit.Setting up a fictitious online identity, and hurling humiliating insults at that 'person.'.Like cutting, it is a pressure relief-valve for pain.Like Munchhausen syndrome, it draws attention to oneself.Like any disguised cry for help, it is a new way to interrupt negative feelings, low self-esteem, and the cycle of judging that spirals deeper and deeper into the psyche. Researchers still know very little about this new mode of securing emotional support. But it is not just individuals who get taunted on the bus or are sitting alone in the cafeteria who turn to technology to cope with their insecurities, anxieties, and/or depression. Rather, new research coming out of Florida Atlantic University suggests that young people who appear to fit in, to have friends and perform satisfactorily in school – kids who don’t raise red flags to teachers or to parents – may be self-trolling and smearing their reputations online. The study, conducted by Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja and published in the Journal of Adolescent Health claims that nearly six percent of students admitted to posting something unkind about themselves online. In other words, approximately one in 20 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 had anonymously pilloried their own reputation. Of those who digitally self-harmed, just over half said they had done it only once, while approximately one third said they had done it several times. Unexpectedly, a whopping 13 percent – more than one in ten – said they had digitally self-harmed numerous times.

Boys were more likely to describe their behavior as a joke or way to get attention.

Girls often stated that they cyber self-harmed because they were depressed.

Students who didn't identify as heterosexual were three times more likely to cyberbully themselves.

Victims of cyberbullying were 12 times more likely to say negative things about themselves online than those who hadn't been bullied before.

Self cyber-assault may seem counter-intuitive, but adolescents who have created a reasonably successful social identity may have no outlet for their anxiety or depression, for abuses they are suffering at home, or for relentless self-judgments. Too much is at stake, socially, for them to express these emotions to peers, who may think them freaky or uncool, so they manage their feelings by foisting them onto a cyber alter-ego.Youth who are particularly at risk include those who:

feel lonely, depressed, or misunderstood

do not want to seem weird or ‘uncool’ to their friends

want to avoid talking about their feelings because so as not to be branded childish or immature (acting ‘like a girl’—or a fag)

Fictitious online identities provide a 'safe forum.' They are not readily discoverable, or able to be outed. Self-trolling, on the other hand, allows for layers of meaning (for example, after a deprecating self-post one can, of course, say ‘only kidding – it was a joke.' Sound familiar?)article continues after advertisementIn a press release, lead author Dr. Sameer Hinduja cited the suicide of Hannah Smith, a 14-year-old British girl who died in 2013. Initially, it was believed that she had been driven to suicide by cyber-bullying on the part of her peers. Further investigation revealed that she had written most of the negative posts to herself in the weeks leading up to her death. (The Daily Mail reports that in fact, two teenage girls used the apps Ask.fm and After School to anonymously post abusive comments about themselves leading up to their suicides.) The National Alliance on Mental Illness contends that the impulse to self-harm isn’t uncommon in adolescents. A sign of emotional distress (something many young people feel as they begin to navigate new hormonal impulses, new social dynamics, and the increasing demands made on them) cyber self-harm can be linked to overwhelming emotions that the individual does not know how to handle (but feel they should know how to negotiate. Others around them are managing.) High levels of frustration, anger, and pain may prompt a young person to “release” their emotions by cutting or self cyber-bullying. The subsequent shame and guilt elicited by these actions readily cycles back and increases the sense that emotions are out of control—which only feeds the need to again release their feelings in the secret way that seems to work, for now…Cyber self-harm is clearly a cry for help, and there are professional responses to this behavior. Unfortunately, the cry is exceedingly difficult to hear. The anonymity of cyberspace masks identities and makes the source of pain difficult to ascertain. As with other forms of social aggression, our best resource in countering this behavior is the peer-group. But since they are precisely the group that self-bulliers are trying to deceive or elude, the youth cohort needs to rely on other ‘tells’ to identify their peers who may be struggling. More importantly, they need to believe it is their responsibility to be pro-active, should they become concerned.

No matter what it is you celebrate—or ignore—the “holiday season” is fraught with stressors. The crowds, the traffic, the expectations of colleagues and family, the relentless holiday music —not to mention the financial strain felt by many—all contribute to frustration, short fuses, and forced smiles. For many of us, this season of stress will culminate in a shared meal—a gathering with family and friends who may be ‘nice enough,’ yet hold opinions vastly different from our own. Things become strained when one or more family member passes judgment, and does so in a way that only family can: by situating differences in entrenched power-dynamics (a successful lawyer returns to a table where her opinions are dismissed as her “still” looking for attention; a college administrator married to a Muslim is all-too-aware of the silences and eye-rolls). Because every glance or comment potentially references old patterns of authority and control, tensions can readily erupt-- chairs are scraped back, a contingent retreats to the kitchen, coats are hastily retrieved.

(STAGE DIRECTION: Insert a “freeze frame” in the action, and a late-nite TV voice-over: “Don’t Let This Happen to Your Family!)

As we prepare to gather around a familial table (especially this year, when the country is overtly divided around election results) it will be helpful to begin strategizing ways to interrupt the bullying that recurs around your holiday table. Even as you steel yourself for the anticipated comments (recalling what so antagonized you last year—and the year before that), identify what makes intervening difficult for you. Once you have pinpointed your particular roadblocks, consider ways to get around them. (What exit ramps and "Detour" signs are automatically bypassed on this emotional straightaway?) What will prevent you—or sister Sue—from walking away, swearing “this is absolutely the last year we will put up with this %^$#!” (Only to do an encore of this dramatic exit next year, because you “come back for mom,” “want the kids to know their cousins / grandparents,” or because the train-wreck routinely occurs at your in-laws). This year, bring increased awareness to other dynamics around your table. Are you the scapegoat, or is everyone bullied in small, passive-aggressive ways? Who might you gently support? Whose silence signals distress? Compliance? How do others see you and what is your role in sustaining these dynamics? ’Awareness’ is only the first of 5 steps identified by Latané and Darley in 1970, in their groundbreaking work on bystanders. The subsequent steps include2) Interpreting the event as requiring intervention;3) Assuming responsibility;4) Deciding how to help;5) Confidence in capacity to help

Often, we are quite good with steps 1 and 2, and are willing to take step 3. But when it comes to family, the next two steps bedevil us. We are not sure how to help, nor do we have confidence that our overtures will make a difference. This is often because of the (entrenched) response of the victim—whether it be you, your mother, or a sibling. There is a ‘here we go again…’ quality to much holiday-table bullying, which allows it to tap into emotions that have been stockpiled for years. Realize this. Know that nothing you do will succeed if your objective is to to redress the disrespect of the present, as well as the slights of Holidays past. If you instead allow the ghost of holidays present/future to show you the situation as though you were a bystander to your own dynamic, you will be able to focus on ways to interrupt the cycle. So—try ‘deciding how to help’ on the basis of doing nothing more than interrupting the expected course of things. article continues after advertisement1) Take a deep breath. And another. Excuse yourself and go to the bathroom.2) Determine which of the 3 D’s best fits the situation: Distract, Delegate, Delay

DISTRACT: It is well-known that the most tried-and-true way to successfully intervene is to change the topic—but do so in a deliberate way. Preface it with something like “y’know, saying that to Jo isn’t really in the spirit of the holiday—so let’s talk about what’s for dessert, or Tom’s new job, or how grateful I am for all the work that went into preparing this meal and the efforts everyone made to be here.”Even as you deflect, you take an overt, yet gentle stand against the dynamics about to shift into gear. Tensions may quietly simmer for a few moments, but they have not boiled over. The conversation moves on.

DELEGATE:Who else around the table looks uncomfortable? S/he may not be willing to align themselves with you publicly, but they may be an ally in interrupting the too-familiar dynamic that is sliding into place. Look for ways to connect with these relatives—over children, job frustrations, anything that encourages their voice. You not only divert the conversation, but delegate some of the responsibility (for interrupting the cycle) to others, co-opting them into alliances and partnerships.

DELAY:Remember that intervening doesn’t always translate to championing the target of someone else’s aggressions. If you can anticipate the emotional course before you arrive, think of new ways to delay it. What (other than the game on TV) can sidetrack antagonists before the dynamic kicks in? Sure you’ve tried this before, and everyone at the table knows the 3 topics that ‘always work,’ so come prepared with a fourth—something you’re passionate about. A book you read / movie you saw, the intrigue at the office, someone new or funny or interesting that you’ve met. Aim to engage the family member who initiates toxic relating. Put your (proverbial) arm around her or his shoulder and steer them in a different direction. As you sit around the table, wanting nothing but to relax because gifts have been given, food has been cooked, and you have duly ‘counted your blessings,’ take one further step, and consciously champion connection—even with folks who voted differently than you. Family tables are where we first learn that our silence keeps us out of the line of fire. Around them sit the people we first bonded with, the ‘tribe’ of people to whom we somehow belong. So smile, shrug your shoulders, refuse to engage, use body languageto signal connection to a relative when tensions surge around them. Offer your own narrative, solicit others, praise the food, and realize that this is where tolerance of diversity begins. And remember, when they go low, you go high.

Parents have been known to badger their children about one thing or another—cajoling, yelling, reprimanding, restricting access, movement, funding…even shaming.

"HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU not to...'x'?You think it's funny?I've HAD IT with you. Go to your room.And you can forget about the sleepover on Friday."

Without a doubt, it seems they bully—antagonizing and aggravating their charges on the basis of their "preferences" and "rules"—on an ongoing basis.

Perhaps this is why we seem so powerless in the face of bullying behaviors.Perhaps we model (non-physical) aggressions in our homes—imposing values, isolating, punishing, humiliating—even as we decry the (re)enactment of these behaviors on the playground, in the hallways, on the bus, in the cafeteria.

Certainly this argument can be made. More than this, we train our children to be invested in what we think of them, then wring our hands when our children worry about what their peers think of their clothes, their hair, their features…

Both of these behaviors—and the dilemmas they suggest—are patterned during early childhood socialization, when children vest authority in the gaze of an other—their caregiver(s). During this period, they look to please those who have the power to judge (and punish).

Their efforts (fealty?) may be an expression of love (if not dependence), a strategy in winning parental approval and affection, or simply a way to deflect anger / feel safe.

Note that these same motivations hold in the playground.

Peers—like parents before them—are agents of socialization. In this role, they—like parents before them—evaluate and critique behaviors. One way that both parents and peers respond to untoward behavior is to parody it, teasing the transgressor. Parents usually employ this strategy in an attempt at humor, looking to lighten the critique and soften the judgment. Encouraging laughter is one way to signal that the mistake is forgivable, reparation can be made, the trespass will not sever relationship. Even when caregivers yell, punish, and seem disgusted by the behavior of their charges, intentionally eliciting shame, guilt, and a sense of failure, there is usually a path toward redemption and reintegration. (As Michael Lewis has argued, their intent is “to teach their children to internalize values and to motivate their children, in [their ] absence…not to violate these standards, rules, and goals. What better way to prevent the child from doing this than by producing a strong emotion? The production of shame, even at normal levels, is an ideal device for instilling internalized values.”)

The intent to elicit shame seems perilously close to—if not identical with—the behavior of peers who have been charged with bullying. And in fact, the most significant difference between most parental discipline/shaming and most peer humiliation / bullying lies in the follow-up: in the potential for redemption. Young people may well critique, judge and even socialize peers into the group in ways that are reminiscent of—if not patterned on—the discipline found in their homes. Yet they rarely follow through and admit of the possibility of reparation, forgiveness and the restoration of social bonds. Rather, their judgments and critiques look to break connection—in ways that foster negative self-feelings. Their intent is to ridicule, and on that basis to reject any claims of ‘belonging.’

Without the opportunity to atone, behavior-management skills—an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, a willingness to take responsibility, a display of remorse, and/or a correcting of behaviors—are useless. When the conditions for reparation and redemption—also patterned during early socialization—are not in the offing ("If you clean your room and promise not to do 'x' ever--and I mean ever--again, I'll think about letting you go on Friday"), the negotiation of criticism and humiliation is daunting—and the judgments passed are but stepping-stones to bullying.

Many schools (high schools, colleges and professional schools) as well as corporations and organizations offer ‘leadership training’ courses and seminars. At the same time, they have begun to call for ‘bystander intervention.’ Such intervention seems to require leadership skills, yet no-one offers training in 'bystander techniques.' So, here are a few concretestrategies that even those disinclined to get involved can employ: 1. Make eye contact with the victim. Shrug your shoulders, roll your eyes in the direction of the bully, arch your eyebrows, smile apologetically, shake your head and walk away. These are only a handful of the nuanced gestures of inclusion one can direct toward the victim. They go far toward negating the impression that ‘everyone’ is in silent solidarity with the bully. 2. Distract and /or redirect the attention of aggressors: “yeah, yeah, we know; now let’s go and …..” This is a safe intervention because it neither challenges the aggressor nor appears to sympathize with the target. 3. Connect to other bystanders through body language, and support those looking to be proactive. Bystanders look for backing from those who are also watching the spectacle. Catch someone’s gaze. Allow yours to be caught. Again, body language can gesture support, empowering one or another to act. 4. Avoid being a gossip-monger. Find out what happened, discuss any relevant aspects with peers, but don’t be a gossip-monger, fanning speculation. The less you contribute to re-hashing the incident, the faster chatter will move on to other topics. Do your small part in minimizing its social significance, and/or its life-span, by refusing to pay it undue attention. Think of the small comfort it might offer a victim to be able to think not ‘everybody’ stopped to witness her or his public humiliation, or are chatting about it on social media. 5. If the victim has transgressed and been publicly shamed, yet her ridicule and exclusion is ongoing, say—or tweet--something like, ‘Yeah but I feel bad for her, cause everybody is....’ It is not threatening, and might curtail gossip or even turn the conversation in a sympathetic direction (even if the immediate response back is 'well I don't'). . 6. Make eye contact with the victim beyond the immediate spectacle of shaming—in the halls, in the cafeteria, on the bus. The Germans have an expression “wie Luft behandel.” It literally means “to be looked at as though air.” Failure to acknowledge a victim reinforces rejection. 7. Risk telling an aggressor to ‘chill,’ or to just 'walk away.' The incident is not worth getting so worked up over. This shifts the terms of the dynamic. Offering feedback to an aggressor has the potential to circumscribe abuse of the victim, while appearing to focus on the best interests of the bully. 8. Be prepared to be a pro-active witness. Film the interaction, or, in the case of cyberbullying, take screen shots. Either might be needed by victims. 9. Anonymously get word to a sympathetic teacher, supervisor or authority figure. Not only does it alert someone in a position to intervene, it spares victims the need to identify themselves as a loser who is incapable of handling a situation—something it may be beyond their capacity to do. (Handling it, to victims, usually means ‘taking it.’ However, as has been increasingly shown, social rejection leads to cognitive impairment, so that ‘taking it’—remaining stoic in the face of ongoing social aggression--increasingly erodes a victim’s ability to negotiate day-to-day demands.) 10. Turn laughter back on itself, defusing the situation. Young people do this every day, in hallways, in cafeterias, and on social media. “Yo—why you still bothering with this drama (laugh)?” or “Seriously? Dude, that’s pathetic.” Generated by the peer cohort, these checks tease the bully, suggesting that aggressive behavior might begin to reflect negatively on its perpetrator. Not everyone has a relationship with an aggressor that allows this banter. But someone does. Bystanders can back such nonthreatening remarks by nodding, by adding, “Yeah, it’s time,” or by simply dispersing.BONUS POINTS: Do not become part of the ‘bystander effect,’ even if you know that someone else has already intervened (in a pro-active way). Authority figures are much more inclined—and able--to act if they hear about abuse from more than once source. Victims are much more able to negotiate their humiliation if more than one person offers a small gesture of kindness, even a surreptitious one. (Practice using your voice by echoing the voice of others.)DOUBLE BONUS POINTS: If you are brave enough to confront someone behaving aggressively, think to do so in the form of a question. (Otherwise, you risk being perceived as someone looking to shame and humiliate a perpetrator, raising the stakes of the encounter). Asking “why do you keep ragging on him?” or “look at her—haven’t you said enough?” sidesteps a direct challenge, asking, instead, that they explain/justify their ongoing behavior. A request is much less threatening than a denouncement, yet sends the same message.

For well over a month, the video of Ray Rice punching his then-girlfriend Janay, and knocking her out cold, has been played and replayed, analyzed, demonized, and used as a rallying cry. Now that his Appeal is imminent, it is time to ask what—if any-- other story-lines might be linked to this incident, or does the clip say all that needs to be said? For many, Rice’s violence toward his partner was unforgivable, and public outcry over his 2-game suspension created a media firestorm that resulted in a richly deserved indefinite suspension / severance from the Ravens. While Rice’s revised formal punishment was, ostensibly, in response to the domestic violence in the video, outrage has lingered because the knock-out punch to his then-fiancé was not the most disturbing aspect of his behavior. Rather, it was his utter lack of remorse that galvanized public opinion. Rice snapped, and lost control. But when he saw the effect of his reactiveness, he did not crumple to her side, cradle her, try to revive her, or seem upset to have hit her so hard as to knock her out. It is his glaring lack of human relating, of immediate contrition and assistance, that so stunned the public. A repentant Ray, an ashamed, appalled, contrite Ray, would not have called out the cultural censure that an indifferent Ray, dragging Janay’s limp body off the elevator like a sack of potatoes, then placing a call on his cell-phone, brought down upon his head. Ray Rice has become the NFL fall-guy, the official scapegoat for the “tough new stance” on domestic violence. The incident did not simply blow over (as it had for Greg Hardy of the Panthers and Ray MacDonald of the 49’ers). Fallout from the video continues to ripple, and as Rice remains, for the main part, silent (excepting one press-conference, which did not go far enough) his window of opportunity has all-but-closed.

Without timely repentant overtures, culture has been unwilling to offer Rice the possibility of forgiveness. His career has been forfeit, his HS trophies and plaques stripped from places of honor, his official NFL jersey bought back / traded in by the League. He has been banished, and—for now at least-- given no possibility of redemption. And, his continued relative unresponsiveness is sealing this fate. Without actively campaigning for forgiveness, Rice has seemingly lost the possibility to atone, leaving a single, disconcerting question: what extremes might this man—or any (wo)man who has lost everything, suffered unrelenting public shame, and been given no way to redeem him or herself—be driven to? The question is not simply should he be barred from the NFL (was his punishment legal?) but should he be socially branded for his transgression, barred from getting past his public disgrace--unable to atone, be forgiven, and reintegrated into social and professional communities?

We all act badly at times, and need to be able to made amends. Why hasn’t Rice gone all-out in an attempt to do so? In the face of even rudimentary pro-active damage-control, it would seem reasonable to hand Rice costly professional and social penalties, but honor his overtures, thereby providing him a road-map for redemption. Make him the poster-boy for the emotional support that players, who are rewarded by violence at game-time, need in their personal lives. The NFL’s youngest fans need to know that it is possible to survive disgrace, but that one must atone for bad behavior, and allow one’s punishment to pave the road to re-admission to society—even if it is on vastly different terms. Hope itself cannot be forfeit These young fans, as well as women carefully monitoring this case, need to know that when violence is enacted off the field, the penalties will be steep, and forgiveness will need to be earned. When such efforts are lacking (even if on the seemingly bad advice of counsel), the community has little choice but to cast out these members, who are threats to the integrity of the whole.

http://www.infowars.com/top-court-in-new-york-rules-cyberbullying-law-violates-first-amendment/ The question frequently asked by frustrated parents is “but isn’t vicious texting hate speech’ (and isn’t hate speech against the law)? Even before New York’s Judge Victoria Graffeo argued that “the [Albany county law illegalizing cbyerbyllying]** would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example, an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult“ I put that question to a Constitutional lawyer. Hoping hoping to get a concise, if overly simplified answer, I was not disappointed. My own lay understanding of hate speech was roughly what any site on the internet will tell you―‘Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.’ What I came to understand over lunch is that no clear “Law” against cruel, nasty, or hateful speech―-just as there is no law against pornography. There are obscenity laws, and there are hate crime laws. But attempts to stuff much of the behavior, images and/or speech that challenges social norms under these laws will simply not hold up in court―as that content is precisely what First Amendment laws aim to protect. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/cyberbullyinghttp://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=76&pageid=385http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htmUpshot: Best course of action still seems to be to be sure your school writes a clear code of conduct policy about cyberbullying―including consequences for incidents posted after school hours. Be sure that policy is plastered everywhere, and that cases are prosecuted by the school, hopefully becoming enough of a deterrent. If the legality of the conduct code itself is challenged, know that every Supreme Court decision since the seminal Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 (1969) has reaffirmed and expanded the kinds of speech schools are allowed to regulate (including Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and most recently, Morse v. Frederick). What I’m curious to learn is, if addressing this issue in our schools was up to you, how would you handle it―and simultaneously protect ‘freedom of speech’?** The Albany County law defined cyberbullying as “any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, including posting statements on the Internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs, disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person.”

Ever since viewing this ‘take a stand against bullying’ video, I have been troubled by it.

Not troubled in the expected way—outraged on behalf of the anchor because she had been the target of what she identified as bullying. Troubled that what in fact she labeled as bullying, and called on viewers to rally against, did not, to my mind, qualify as ‘bullying.’ Which is not to say I condone it. But the incident that she singles out and condemns as more than merely ‘inappropriate ’behavior bears closer scrutiny. The egregious e-mail specifically focused on her ‘physical condition,’ and questioned whether she did not feel it her ‘responsibility,’ as a public role model, to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.’ This questioning was couched in a concern that her physique did not set a good example for our children, especially our girls—that, in fact, it promoted a ‘dangerous lifestyle.’ And the interesting thing is, the anchor did not disagree. Instead, she responded to things the e-mail did not say, strongly asserting ‘you know nothing about me, or about my family.’ The author never pretended to know anything about her or her family, or to judge them in any capacity. Nor did s/he imply the anchor was a bad person for having excess weight, ridicule her for it through social media, called her unkind names, or in any way publicly mock her. Rather, s/he questioned her ‘choice’ to continue to be obese. In re-reviewing the offending e-mail, several points stand out: First, as public figures well know, their very visibility invites all manner of commentary from viewers—commentary and opinions their viewers are, frankly, entitled to. This is especially the case when those views—distasteful as they might be-- are ‘reasonably’ communicated, as were those contained in the e-mail in question. The e-mail’s author questioned the appropriateness of the anchor’s physical presentation, rather than nastily judging and condemning her. S/he did not post views on any variety of social media, spread malicious commentary about her adequacy as an anchor, or attempt to publicly humiliate her. Nor did s/he reach out on more than one occasion, or harass her in any ongoing capacity. It is the very repetitiveness of bad behavior that, most experts agree, comes to define it as bullying. Many also cite the public nature of the humiliation, another characteristic missing from this incident. The e-mail may be inappropriate, mean-spirited even, arguably attempting to shame its recipient. But is it bullying? I am not sure. Second, the responsibility this reporter assumed, to the community, was to chastise the author. She did not engage the content / refute the author on her (or his) own terms, using the opportunity to become a mythbuster on behalf of all those who tip the scales beyond what is deemed ‘healthy.’ She might have pointed out that such weight is often the side-effect of medication—and we are nothing if not a medicated society. She might have pointed out that obesity has a genetic component, and that many individuals who struggle with weight are very conscious of what they eat. She may have pointed out how difficult it is for many women to lose baby weight, given all the physiological changes that gestation / birth entail. Finally, she may have pointed out that a significant percentage of the population own their size, choice or not. (None of these options need to have been linked to her personal situation, which truly is no-one’s business.) Instead, the anchor publicly calls out the author of the anonymous e-mail, ‘proving’ that she has a ‘thick skin. More instructive would have been an admission that even while she was standing strong, such targeting and judgments always hurt. Truly standing strong, she may have resisted hopping on the ‘bullying bandwagon’ over an incident that, while distasteful, falls short of the type of harassment that is driving young people to desperate, extreme behavior. Bullying is a serious social problem, and if we cry foul at every instance of cruelty that makes its way into our lives, or every comment that offends us, ‘bullying’ will become a meaningless term, a charge that has lost its teeth. Third, although questions of intent are a slippery slope in objective definitions, it is still taken into consideration when outsiders attempt to sort out individual incidents. Intent to harass, publicly humiliate, derogate and reject are not clear objectives in this instance. Finally, any student of social dynamics might assert that unfavorable feedback is the prerogative of all members of society. It is how the norms of any culture are policed. Over the past decades, there has been a push to change cultural norms surrounding weight, and our anorexic body ideals. This is yet another avenue of feedback the anchor may have resorted to. We will never live in a world without people who are needy, immature, and/or cruel—on a regular basis, intentionally or unintentionally. To call single incidents of offensive behavior ‘bullying’ is to invite a backlash against this social issue, one that victims can ill-afford.

June 1, 2012Again the headlines scream “…driven to Suicide…” and “…hangs himself after bullies tease…” and sadly, it appears that we are reading the same articles we read only a few short months ago—with one important difference. Adults in authority knew what was going on, and had taken measures to keep young Joel Morales safe. According to one media source, relatives had even filed a police report, and Joel had been transferred to a different school. If this was not effective, what can be done? Parents, teachers, and authorities are at a loss—but bullying is hardly the first social issue to be rather impervious to the efforts to change “normal” behavior. Think of alcohol abuse—how intractable it still seems, yet how effective AA and Mothers Against Drunk Driving became. The School Assemblies they spoke at are the only ones many parents today remember— parents who are now able to reach out to all manner of support when they discover their own children are abusing substances. Think back even further, when wife-battering was put on the social agenda in the 1970’s. This physical abuse was—and still is–hidden and denied, because its victims fear retribution.—something often expressed by victims of (and bystanders to) bullying. Even though this fear persists, victims of battering have more options today than they did only a generation ago–and more than do victims of bullying today. While drunk driving and spousal battering can still be pointed to, what has changed are the norms of society. The responses of others around the inebriated or the abused. Social support in all guises—formal laws and shelters to informal support groups–for victims, perpetrators, and others who are affected abound, and are readily available. More importantly, there are enough individuals who do not believe drunk driving or wife battering are cool, or even acceptable, and it is this informal network of support that has created safe spaces and modified behaviors. There are bystanders who are able to intervene—without fear of retribution. And it is changes in the day to day responses of bystanders that will slowly change the formidable issues that now characterize bullying. Culture is outraged—and this is the first crucial step. Outcry is being made, and the swell from below will change norms—but it will take time.

It is a well-known , sad-but-true irony that most wars have been fought in the name of religion. The same judgmental tendencies which armed the righteous on battlefields are now playing themselves out in Tennessee courtrooms. There, members of the Family Action Council of Tennessee ( FACT ) seek exemption from any ‘bullying’ laws that seek protections for, or educational initiatives designed to insure tolerance of, individuals who express LGBT identities. Legal focus is shifted to attributes of the victims, as opposed to the behaviors of the bullies. ‘All men are created equal’, when written, referred only to white men. Men of any other race were not fully human, and women weren't even in the picture. Now it seems FACT wants courts to acknowledge that men (and women) of all races are equal under the law, but not men (women) of all sexual persuasions. They are not entitled to protection in the pursuit of happiness—and their life and liberty may be at stake as well.